There were, as you might expect, some wonderful insights
from respondents this week.
Here are some of my favorites:
"Plan Sponsors should
make this very difficult decision based on the facts and
budget within their company, not based on what others are
doing. No one ever knows the full story regarding the
"others"
"By advertising this you
will just have employers jumping on the band wagon without
doing the analysis that they need. In today's climate,
many employers are just reacting with the "me
too" without actually thinking through the entire
issue."
"The list should
represent the Companies that HAVEN'T changed. The
negative press is scaring everybody-worldwide."
"I assume companies that are
doing this are doing this for a good reason. What I'd
like to see are companies that are being more creative -
such as a company that is hurting with a 3% match that opts
to cut salaries by 3% by retain the match ... or instead of
a layoff, requiring unpaid time off, and the
like."
"It will make the network
news shows when the first company who has frozen a DB plan
in favor of a 401(k) also suspends the company match . . .
."
"I prefer to be an ostrich
with my head in the sand trying to pretend things
aren't really this bad and don't want to provide
any ammunition to eliminate a match when I think we should
be increasing it, according to (probably now defunct)
benchmarking data. Having said that, though, I don't
think many of us would chose layoffs over giving up a
match."
"Let the world and
particularly the politicians know the trouble they have
caused."
"OK, as long as the
percentage of plans not deciding to reduce their match is
included in the text to give some perspective."
"It would be helpful to see
the types and scope in specific industries."
"Not necessary -- we get the
idea."
"Daily, hourly, moment by
moment we are bombarded with this information, which
creates panic and reaction without considerable thought. We
are, in many ways, our own worst enemies. Please don't
add any more "fuel to the fire". It is already
burning at an extremely rapid pace."
"I'd be interested in
hearing if those companies who did suspend their match saw
a noticeable decrease in the their ADP. If so, maybe this
may give some pause to those still considering a
suspension. Just my 2 cents (before taxes)."
"The only reason to publish a
list like that is for those that need moral support to
convince a Board of Directors or they don't know how to
make their own decision and will follow the group. Neither
is a good reason to publish. Besides, you already tell us
each week those that have made the decision. Thanks."
"I would like to see a
scorecard. It will make me even more appreciative of my
employer, who has kept the match intact."
"Here is an opportunity to
exercise your editorial license. You can put whatever spin
on the situation you wish (something at which the
present-day media has become quite adept). If you want to
sway opinion to suspending the match publish only a list of
those companies that have suspended or plan to suspend.
Conversely, if you want to go the other direction...And if
you want to maintain the APPEARANCE of fairness while still
putting a spin on opinion you can publish both lists, just
be sure to make the one you want to promote much longer
than the other. I am NOT implying you are into the spin
business, I'm just observing the way our modern media
functions."
"I would quit reporting who
is dropping their match altogether. It just gives the idea
to other companies that it is the trend to follow. Like any
other benefit, once it is done away with, it will be hard
to get back."
"I would hope it doesn't
matter. Personally, I would only use the list in the event
that we reduced or eliminated our match as a last resort
and I needed to show our employees that we aren't the
only ones doing this. However, I would not use the list as
proof or part of my strategy to make the decision in the
first place."
"But, we'd like to see it
anyway. For whatever it's worth, we'll want to have
available something to show employees that indeed it's
wide-spread and not just a (local) monkey-see monkey-do."